The Case of Preston Hughes III: The Searchers Part 5 and Last

This post will be quick, at least by my standards. I want to end this mini series within a series and I want to get on to the next post, which I consider pretty cool. So times a wasting. No need to buckle up. We'll live dangerously.

In addition the other items already discussed, the police recovered a maroon pullover shirt and a plastic bag containing (ahem) a green leafy substance. Here's the pic. Click to enlarge.

The most disturbing news here is that Preston smokes, or at least he did back then.

I understand that the green leafy substance (henceforth GLF) belonged to Preston. I am attempting to confirm that, but our interaction is necessarily slow and awkward. I am also attempting also to learn from whom and from whence such GLF was obtained.

Regarding the plastic bag, they did not (as far as can be determined from the police reports) attempt to lift fingerprints from it. Officer Hale did not even try by himself to lift them, as he personally tired to lift prints from the beer can. Neither the plastic bag nor the beer can were sent to the lab for printing. Only the glasses were sent to the lab for printing.

The maroon pullover shirt constitutes the third shirt that the police took from Preston's apartment. The two others were almost identical blue work shirts. That simple fact adds to the weight of evidence that no blood was visible on the shirts. It's unlikely Preston wore two work shirts plus a the pullover maroon shirt when he allegedly stabbed Shandra and Marcell. It's very likely he would have ended up with lots of blood on one of the shirts, possibly two, but no way three.

If blood was visible on any one, or even two, of the shirts, the police could have taken that one shirt or those two shirts. One might argue the police were just being thorough, but they were not. They didn't take any of the shirts from Preston's closet.

They tested all three shirts with a Luminol like substance to identify possible areas where they might find blood. They did that because they could not see any blood. They could not see any blood, I suggest, because none existed.

The End

 <-- Previous                           Table of Contents                              Next --> 

The Re-Impending Execution of Daniel Cook

Daniel Wayne Cook now sits on death row awaiting execution by the people of Arizona. He is scheduled to be executed tomorrow, 8 August 2012. I suspect he will not survive the day.

Cook did survive his previous execution date, more than a year ago. That impending execution prompted me to write about him then. I simply repeat my previous post below, in its entirety. It seems as if I was in a bitter mood when I wrote it.

---

This post almost writes itself. The pattern is now too common.

A murderer is on the verge of execution. The murders are particularly grusome. (It seems as if the murders are always particularly grusome.) There is no chance the person sitting on death row did not at least participate in the crime that led to the murders. There is some dispute, however, over who did the actual killing or killings. The prosecutor rewards the first person to rat out the other with life, early out, or even freedom. The prosecutor charges the other with capital murder. Death penalty proponents compete among themselves with insightful commentary such as "good riddance" and "rot in hell." Death penalty opponents point to an abusive and disasterous childhood. I simply excerpt an appellate decision, stand mute rather than take a position, and the world goes on without a bother.

Daniel Wayne Cook (see Too Many Waynes) is scheduled to be executed by the people of Arizona on 5 April 2011 for the murders of Carlos Cruz Ramos and Kevin Swaney. There is no viable evidence that Cook did not participate in the kidnapping and torture of the victims. The mutilated bodies were found in his closet, for Pete's sake, while he was still in the room.

From the appellate decision in State v. Cook I offer the lurid details.

Shortly after 4:00 a.m. on July 21, 1987, John Matzke and Byron Watkins arrived at the Lake Havasu City Police Department, where Matzke reported his involvement in two murders committed at his apartment during the evening of July 19 and early morning of July 20. Matzke told officers about the crimes and granted the police consent to enter the apartment. Investigating officers went to the apartment that Matzke shared with Cook. After arresting Cook, officers searched the apartment and discovered the bodies of Carlos Cruz Ramos and Kevin Swaney in the closet of Matzke's bedroom. Autopsies revealed that both victims had been strangled.

Cook and Matzke were each indicted on two counts of first degree murder. In return for the state's dismissal of all other charges, Matzke agreed to plead guilty to one count of second degree murder and to testify against Cook. Cook was not offered a plea agreement. At trial Matzke related the following sordid story of bondage, torture, and sodomy, in which Cook was the principal protagonist. 

Carlos Cruz Ramos was a Guatemalan national employed at the same restaurant where Cook and Matzke worked. He had recently moved into their apartment. According to Matzke, Cook devised a plan to steal Cruz Ramos' money. While Matzke distracted Cruz Ramos, Cook stole  approximately $90 from Cruz Ramos' money pouch. Shortly afterward, Cruz Ramos noticed his money was missing, and asked Cook and Matzke whether they knew anything about it. The two then lured Cruz Ramos into Cook's upstairs bedroom. They pushed Cruz Ramos down on the bed and, using strips torn from Cook's sheets, gagged him and tied him to a chair. 

Over the course of the next six or seven hours, Cruz Ramos was cut with a knife, beaten with fists, a metal pipe and a wooden stick, burned with cigarettes, sodomized, and had a staple driven through his foreskin. Matzke suggested that they kill Cruz Ramos because they could not let him go. Cook replied that Cruz Ramos should be killed at midnight, "the witching hour." When midnight arrived, Matzke first tried to strangle Cruz Ramos with a sheet. Matzke then took Cruz Ramos out of the chair, put him on the floor, and pushed down on his throat with a metal pipe. According to Matzke, because Cruz Ramos still would not die, Cook pressed down on one end of the pipe while Matzke pressed on the other. Finally, Matzke stood on the pipe as it lay across Cruz Ramos' throat and killed him. 

Matzke and Cook later dressed Cruz Ramos and put him in the closet of Matzke's bedroom. The autopsy revealed that Cruz Ramos had suffered severe lacerations and contusions as a result of his beating, that he had been cut on the chest, and that his stomach and genitals had been burned. The autopsy also revealed that Cruz Ramos had two puncture holes in his foreskin and that his anus was dilated, although no semen was detected. 

Kevin Swaney was a sixteen-year-old runaway and sometime guest at the apartment. He was a dishwasher at the restaurant where the others worked. Shortly after 2:00 a.m., approximately two hours after Cruz Ramos' death, Swaney stopped by the apartment. Cook initially told Swaney to leave, but subsequently invited him inside. Cook and Matzke told Swaney they had a dead body upstairs and, according to Matzke, Cook took Swaney upstairs and showed him Cruz Ramos' body. Swaney was crying when he and Cook returned downstairs. Cook reportedly told Swaney to undress, and Swaney complied, and Cook and Matzke then gagged him and tied him to a chair in the kitchen. Matzke said he told Cook that he would not witness or participate in Swaney's torture. Matzke then went into the living room and fell asleep in a chair. 

Cook later woke Matzke, who said he saw Swaney bound and gagged, sitting on the couch, crying. Cook told Matzke he had sodomized Swaney and that they had to kill him. Matzke said they tried to strangle Swaney with a sheet, but Matzke's end kept slipping out of his hands. Cook then reportedly stated "this one's mine," placed Swaney on the floor, and strangled him. He carried Swaney's body upstairs and put him in the closet with Cruz Ramos. 

The autopsy revealed that Swaney's anus was dilated and semen was present, although the identity of the donor could not be ascertained. Matzke's fingerprints were found on the knife used to cut Cruz Ramos' chest, but no identifiable fingerprints were found on the metal pipe or wooden stick. Cook's fingerprints were found on the chair to which Cruz Ramos had been tied, the closet door, and the stapler. His semen was found on the strips that had been torn from his bedsheets. There was no other physical evidence of Cook's participation. 

After Swaney's murder, Cook and Matzke fell asleep downstairs. Later in the day, Matzke went to work, but returned a few hours later after quitting his job at the restaurant. Late that evening, some friends came over to the apartment. Early in the morning of July 21, 1987, Matzke took one of the friends, Byron Watkins, outside of the apartment and told him about the murders. Watkins convinced Matzke to go to the police. 

When Cook was arrested and brought to the station, he was questioned by Detective David Eaton of the Lake Havasu City Police Department. According to Eaton, he advised Cook of his Miranda rights, then asked him how the two bodies found in the apartment had gotten there. Cook replied that "we got to partying; things got out of hand; now two people are dead." When asked how they died, Cook said "my roommate killed one and I killed the other."

Now, with the appellate court excerpt cleverly pasted into my post, I add my boilerplate conclusion.

I oppose the execution of people who might be factually innocent of the crime for which they are to die. I suspect that to prevent the execution of the factually innocent, we might have to ban the death penalty entirely.

I find no evidence that Daniel Wayne Cook did not participate in the kidnapping and torture that led to the deaths of Carlos Cruz Ramos and Kevin Swaney. Since I limit my efforts to people who are in all respects factually innocent, I stand mute with regard to the execution of Daniel Wayne Cook.

[Perhaps I'm still bummed about the execution of Eric King, who was likely innocent.]

ADDENDUM (9 August 2012):
Daniel Wayne Cook was executed by the people of Arizona on 8 August 2012.

Arson Science Questioned in Two Convictions

The title to this post is less flamboyant than usual. That's because it's not mine. It belongs to the The Richmond Times-Dispatch, the newspaper of record for Richmond and much of Virginia. Written by Frank Green, the article discusses wrongful arson convictions in general and two possible cases in particular: those of Davey James Reedy and Michael Ledford. Since I represent Michael Ledford as an advocate for the wrongfully convicted, I may have brought his case to the attention of Reporter Green.

Please read the article in its totality. I offer only a few brief and non-sequential excerpts below.

Two men who claim they are innocent of arsons that killed their children are hoping scientific advancements in fire investigation in recent decades will clear their names. ... Prosecutors remain convinced the two are guilty as found by juries beyond reasonable doubt. ... 

"When you can prove some other dude done it you're in much better shape. With fires, it's not 'some other dude done it,' it's 'nobody done it,' and that's very difficult to prove once you're convicted," said John J. Lentini, a fire investigation expert and consultant. ..

Ledford, 36, is in his 12th year behind bars for the Oct. 10, 1999, fire that started a few hours after the family celebrated his son's first birthday. The fire was contained to an area surrounding an upholstered chair in the living room of their two-bedroom apartment in Augusta County. It broke out after Ledford left the apartment to run errands and to stop by the fire station where he was a volunteer firefighter. His son, Zachary, was killed by smoke inhalation and his wife, Elise, was severely burned but lived. ... 

In the Roanoke arson case, shortly after 6 a.m. on Aug. 10, 1987, a fire broke out in the kitchen of Reedy's home occupied by Reedy, who was asleep on a couch, and his 4-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son. Reedy said he discovered the fire and attempted to save his children, but was overcome by heat and smoke and jumped through a window to escape. He was hospitalized for smoke inhalation, burns and lacerations. His children died from smoke inhalation.

For the remainder of this post, the information regarding Davey Reedy comes from the article. The information regarding Michael Ledford comes my two-year involvement and knowledge of the case, a portion of which was reflected in the article.

Reedy was convicted because of well-intended arson investigators who applied now-discredited rules of thumb, and because of sloppy lab work that somehow detected gasoline residue where none may have existed. Reedy was sentenced to two life terms. Ledford was convicted because of a lackadaisical investigation by the Commonwealth investigator who effectively relinquished the investigation to a less-than-impartial insurance company. Though the Commonwealth sought his death, Ledford was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

Reedy was paroled in 2009 after serving more than 20 years. "The Virginia Parole Board, (which) paroles nobody, let him out," said Reedy's attorney.

That claim seems to be accurate, at least according to an article by CorrectionOne.com. The title alone tells much of the story. "At 6%, Virginia's parole rate is among the nation's lowest: Virginia Parole Board denies 94% of requests."

The possibility of parole is even more bleak for Michael Ledford. In fact, it is non-existent. In 1994, parole was abolished by the Virginia Legislature. The abolition was not retroactive so Reedy (convicted in 1987) was eligible and Ledford (convicted in 1999) is not.

Though paroled, Reedy is seeking a pardon from Governor Robert McDonnell to clear his name and restore his rights. More than a decade ago, then state delegate McDonnell expressed concern about Reedy's conviction. From the Times-Dispatch article:

In 1999, while a state delegate representing Virginia Beach, McDonnell wrote then-Gov. Jim Gilmore about Reedy's case telling him there was "a substantial amount of evidence to warrant further investigation."

Those of us who advocate for Michael Ledford's release are encouraged by Governor McDonnell's concern that justice be pursued even post-conviction. We have prepared what we believe to be a comprehensive and compelling petition for absolute pardon, and we will be submitting it soon to the governor. I have posted the executive summary of that petition here. The entire petition is 160 pages, or thereabouts. I will be posting it on a chapter-by-chapter basis over the course of the next month or so.

I invite you to follow the story as I post the chapters so that you can better understand how an innocent person can be prosecuted by the State and convicted by a jury of his peers.

Michael Ledford's Petition for Absolute Pardon: Executive Summary

DRAFT 

August 6, 2012

The Honorable Robert F. McDonnell

Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia

In the Matter of Michael J. Ledford, Petitioner

Petition for an Absolute Pardon

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Michael Ledford is serving the twelfth year of a fifty-year sentence for arson and the first-degree murder of his one-year-old son. He pleaded not guilty and has maintained his innocence ever since. He has expended all his appeals, including his one appeal based on actual innocence. A recent independent re-examination of the evidence in his case has determined that the fire resulted not from arson, but from a seriously overheated electrical circuit. Since Michael Ledford's only remaining avenue for relief is executive clemency, he asks that you carefully consider this petition for absolute pardon.

On October 10, 1999, Petitioner Michael Ledford left his apartment to run errands. His wife and his one-year-old son were asleep in separate bedrooms at the rear of the apartment. As he departed, Michael turned on a nearby table lamp using the wall switch near the entry door. That simple, innocent act triggered an electrical fire within the deteriorating electrical system.

Other residents of the Highland Hills Apartments had recently been having problems with their electrical systems. In an adjacent building, a sewing machine motor dragged and a nightlight refused to work. The tenant noticed that the electrical outlet was "very warm." The tenant notified the management. The management had the outlet replaced.

In another apartment, another outlet had become hot to the touch. The tenant notified the management. The management had the outlet replaced.

In one of the two apartments directly above the Ledford apartment, the tenant experienced problems with a kitchen outlet. Being young and self-confident, he replaced the outlet himself. 

At least one of the outlets in the Ledford apartment had been deteriorating for a while. That outlet, however, was located behind the sofa, and no one noticed that it was overheating. The Ledford family and friends did notice that a table lamp had started acting up. Its switch seemingly worked only intermittently. Everyone learned to use the wall switch to control the lamp. It was that wall switch Michael flipped to the ON position as he left to run his errands.

A wall outlet is shown below. It is the outlet that powered the bothersome table lamp. It is the outlet controlled by the wall switch near the door.

There is no doubt that the wiring inside that outlet had burned. The smoke streaks radiating from the perimeter of the outlet and its faceplate provide evidence of a fire within. Even the insurance investigator, an adverse party to Michael's defense and the only person to actually examine the wiring, conceded that it had burned. The insurance investigator, however, assured the jury that the wiring had been a victim of the fire rather than its cause. The insurance investigator assured them that the wiring inside burned only when the fire outside swept over the outlet.

While there is no doubt that the wiring inside the outlet was burned, it could only have burned because it overheated itself from within. The only possible alternative, that it burned as fire swept past, is impossible. No fire did sweep past that outlet. The area behind the couch was spared by the fire, as shown in the image below. 

The composite image shows the relative positions of the couch and the wall outlet. The wall outlet would have, of course, been facing the back of the couch, rather than facing away from it as shown. It is the relative positions of the couch and outlet that are of importance.

The composite image shows clearly that the front of the couch was seriously burned and charred. The image shows with even greater clarity that the area of the couch nearest to the electrical outlet was unburned. There was no fire behind the couch. Fire did not sweep across the face of the outlet. The burned wiring within the outlet did not result from an external heat source.

Though the composite image is compelling by itself, one does not need to rely on it alone. The same conclusion is unavoidable by looking just at the faceplate. It is not melted. It is covered with soot from the fire within, but it is not in any way melted. An external heat source powerful enough to burn the internal wiring would certainly have melted the plastic faceplate.

The burned wiring within the outlet was hardly the only evidence of an overheated electrical circuit. Both the lamp cord and the extension cord lost their prongs when they were unplugged by the investigators. Neither plug showed any substantial damage from external heating. Instead they heated from within sufficiently that they softened, their connections failed, and their prongs separated as the plugs were pulled free.

The light bulb in the table lamp exploded. This is exceedingly rare. Light bulbs are surprisingly durable, designed as they are to withstand the several thousand-degree temperature of their white-hot filaments. Even when heated by a raging fire, light bulbs merely soften and sometimes bulge towards the heat source. Light bulbs can burst if cooled too quickly when firefighters hit them with water, but the fire in the Ledford living room self-extinguished. Not a drop of water was used to extinguish it. Nor did anyone bump or bang the bulb, at least not with sufficient authority to knock the lamp over; the investigators' photos show the lamp still standing in its original position.

Normally, one would expect an overheating circuit to be interrupted by a circuit breaker. The evidence of an overheated, unprotected circuit unfortunately extends all the way to the circuit breaker box. Smoke streaks around the service panel and heavy sooting inside indicate that a fire burned or smoldered within that breaker box.

One breaker actually showed a burn mark on its handle.

The same breaker shows startling evidence of an egregiously unsafe repair. Rather than replacing the breaker after a presumed earlier problem, maintenance personnel merely glued plastic strips over the top of it.

A sooted spider web connects the plastic strip and its oozing adhesive. The spider web is evidence that the improperly repaired breaker had been deteriorating for some time. The spider web is evidence also that a cheap, improper repair eventually cost an infant child his life and the father his freedom.

The crudely patched circuit breaker is not the only egregious code violation revealed by the investigators' photos. Shockingly, the smoke detector was installed without an electrical box. It was supported only by a couple of plastic anchors and (later) its wires, which also are burned.

Of even greater concern than the missing electrical box is what appears to be a severed electrical cable visible in the overhead. Given the ragged end of the exposed cable, and given the equally ragged edge of the hole, it seems as if the electrical cable may have been severed when someone carelessly cut the hole to install the smoke detector.

The missing electrical box, the crudely cut hole, and the apparently severed cable suggest that the box was installed during a retrofit program, one that focused on minimizing cost rather than insuring safety.

The evidence of an electrical fire inside the Ledford apartment is substantial and compelling. Michael was not convicted because the investigators found no evidence of an electrical fire. They found plenty. Nor was Michael convicted because the investigators found some evidence of arson. They found none, none whatsoever. Michael was convicted instead because he confessed.

Though Michael quickly recanted his confession, and though his confession shows the classic hallmarks of being false, Michael did confess. Juries find confessions compelling, even if the confession has been recanted, even if the confession stands in stark contrast to all evidence at the scene.

Juries simply do not understand that false confessions are common.

The Innocence Project explains that in approximately 25% of all DNA exonerations, the person exonerated had either confessed or provided an incriminating statement. Studies conducted since Michael's conviction show that most people, more than 50%, will falsely confess when subjected to interrogation techniques similar to those used on Michael Ledford.

Virginia Governors have a noble history of granting clemency when a person has been proven innocent and when no other relief is available. 

In 1989, Governor Gerald Baliles pardoned David Vasquez, though Vasquez had falsely confessed to the rape and murder of Carolyn Jean Hamm. Governor Baliles believed Vasquez to be innocent, so he set Vasquez free.

In 2000, Governor James Gilmore granted Earl Washington, Jr. an absolute pardon, though Washington had falsely confessed to the rape and murder of Rebecca Lynn Williams. Governor Gilmore believed Earl Washington was innocent, so he set Washington free.

In 2009, Governor Tim Kaine granted conditional pardons to three of the Norfolk Four, though they had each falsely confessed to the rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko. Governor Kaine suspected the three were likely innocent, so he set them free.

Because Michael Ledford was in no way responsible for the fire that took the life of his one-year-old son, and because he has no alternative avenue for relief, he prays that you will grant him an absolute pardon.

The Case of Preston Hughes III: The Searchers Part 4

In Part 2 of this mini-series within an extended series, I  scientifically proved  conclusively demonstrated   argued effectively  suggested Shandra's eyeglasses did not innocently fall or slide into the position in which they were photographed by the HPD. The obvious alternative is that they were planted.

In Part 3 I argued that the preferential evidentiary treatment provided to those glasses adds to suspicions that the glasses were planted.

In this Part 4, herein, I discuss whether or not the eyeglasses had been photographed at the crime scene before being photograph between the cushions of Preston's couch. I'll leave it to the reader to figure out the implications of such a photograph, assuming it exists or once did.

The Hughes' Claim
Preston Hughes III pulls no punches when it comes to the eyeglasses. He argues that they were planted and that there is a photograph from the crime scene to prove it. From his blog, obviously maintained by a third party:

The eyeglasses were planted, by the police, in the cushions of PHIII's white couch and pictures were taken to make it appear as though they were found there. The police apparently did this to make it appear as though the victims had been in PHIII’s apartment prior to their deaths. However there's a problem with this because there was a picture taken of the glasses at the crime scene where the victims were found, before they were planted in PHIII's apartment. The arresting officer made PHIII aware of the fact he planted the eyeglasses in his apartment when he made statements to PHIII, during the interrogation, concerning the fact he searched his apartment. The first attorney, Randolph A. McDonald, appointed to handle PHIII's Habeas Corpus appeal acknowledged the fact he knew the police planted the glasses in PHIII's apartment. And in a phone conversation he had with PHIII he acknowledged the existence of a picture that depicts the glasses on the ground at the crime scene where the bodies of the victims were found. The attorney ended up withdrawing himself from the case because he wasn't being paid enough to represent PHIII. However since learning of the existence of the picture that depicts the eyeglasses at the crime scene PHIII has been diligently trying to obtain this evidence. His family managed to scrape up enough funds to purchase a copy of the police report(s) and a copy of the pictures taken by the crime scene officer. Unfortunately the Houston Police Department purposely withheld a number of the pictures taken by the crime scene officer.

I'll interrupt Hughes' long paragraph at this point. Hughes claims that appellate attorney Randolph McDonald told him (Hughes) that he (McDonald) somehow acknowledged the existence of a photograph showing the eyeglasses at the crime scene. I find the past-tense verb "acknowledged" to be weaker than "possessed" or "confirmed" or "saw."  I can't tell from Hughes' description above whether or not the attorney might be willing to unequivocally state that he knew of such a picture, that he had seen it, that he had held it in his hands, that he had a copy.

Now back to Hughes' paragraph.

Although the attorney has been off of PHIII’s appeal for some years PHIII wrote him in June of 2006 seeking his help with obtaining a copy of the picture(s) that could help prove his innocence and that he was framed. PHIII was very clear in his letter concerning what he was seeking to obtain. The attorney responded to PHIII's letter by stating where he believed PHIII would be able to obtain the evidence he's seeking. Unfortunately, the individual PHIII was told to contact was the ineffective attorney that mishandled PHIII's state Habeas Corpus appeal after Mr. McDonald withdrew from the case. The response from Mr. McDonald to PHIII's letter, although very short, is the only proof PHIII has at this time to prove the police planted the eyeglasses in his apartment.

Hughes claims that McDonald's reply proves the existence of the photo. It's a bold claim, and I credit Hughes for attempting to substantiate it using the text of McDonald's reply, if not an actual image. Here's the response from McDonald, as presented on Hughes' blog.

Dear Mr. Hughes: 

I received your correspondence of June 22, 2006. I do not have the
requested information that you asked for. I believe you might be able to
obtain them from attorney Dick Wheelan. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you need further
assistance. Good luck! 

Yours truly,
Randy McDonald

I fear that reply comes up well short of the proof Hughes so badly needs, even more so now that he has only 104 days to live.

Attempt, if you dare, to put yourself in Preston's shoes. Imagine you are innocent but sentenced to death. Imagine you have been on death row for twenty years, even longer. You are locked up for 23 plus hours per day in a concrete box the size of your bathroom. You are totally dependent on others to keep the State from strapping you to a gurney, from swabbing your arm with alcohol to prevent infection, from then putting a needle in your arm, and from them pumping you full of lethal chemicals. You believe, correctly or incorrectly, that there is a photograph out there that can prove the police framed you. Your family is already made poor by your absence, by the incidental (but not insignificant) costs of your trial, and by the substantial costs of your appeals. You family continues to be drained by the costs of you incarceration, by the outrageously priced phone calls, by the postage you need to plead for help, and by your pathetic commissary purchases. Imagine that you hit them up for hundreds more so that the HPD will provide you the photos you request, as they are obliged to do.

Then imagine the HPD stiffs you.

They take your money, then withhold critical, life-saving photos.

They stiff you.

Yet again.

I will not be able, in this now humble post, to prove the existence of a photo showing Shandra's eyeglasses at the crime scene. What I will be able to do, however, is describe independent evidence that the HPD does indeed withhold photos.

On March 14, 2010, Barbara Lunsford submitted an open records request to the city of Houston for any and all reports regarding the case of Preston Hughes III, for copies of all evidence and property reports for all items collected as part of the case, and for all crime lab reports and all crime scene photos. She received a smattering of what she requested. I will focus here on the 35mm photos of the crime scene and the bodies.

After I began writing of this case, Barbara Lunsford generously shared with me (for free) all the material she had obtained (for hundreds of dollars). She also gave me her permission to use any and all the material as I see fit. I've said it before and I'll repeat it here: Barbara Lunsford is the person responsible for bringing this case to public attention. I am, by comparison, a Johnny Come Lately. I write of Preston's case so extensively only because I learned of the case from Barbara's Mystery Crime Scene web site, and only because she has been so gracious in sharing everything she collected.

Barbara Lunsford assures me that I have a copy of each 35mm photo provided to her in response to her public records request. Let's now compare the number of photos provided to Barbara by the number taken by the Houston Police Department.

Hang on. Here we go.

The Hale Photos
From CSU Officer F.L. Hale's report:

At this time I loaded my 35mm Nikon Camera with 100 ASA film. Using the Sun Pac flash attachment a total of 2 roll [sic] of 35mm was exposed, at the scene and morgue. The two rolls of 35mm film was [sic] kept in officer's are, control, and custody until tagged into the 4th floor I.D. Photo Lab lock box.

From Hale's list of items he recovered:

(2) Rolls of 35mm film.

In summary, Hale reported that he had taken two and only two rolls of 35 mm film. Since he claims to have taken pictures inside Hughes' apartment, I presume he included the apartment as part of the crime scene. I believe he was incorrect in that assumption. Time will tell.

For the youngsters out there, let's see what the Guide to Film Photography web site has to say about 35mm film.

35mm film is the most popular film photography type. 35mm film, or 135 film, was introduced by Kodak in 1934. Fitting 35mm cameras, including single-lens reflex (SLR) and range-finder cameras, basic 35mm film photography is named after the size of the film – 35mm wide. Individual rolls of 35mm film are enclosed in a single-spool, light-tight, metal case that allow it to be loaded into cameras in the daylight. ... Most 35mm film is found in 24-exposure or 36-exposure counts. However, with most cameras and proper film settings, you will be able to squeeze out an additional two or three photographs.

Though film usually comes in 24 or 36-exposure counts, the image associated with the article shows a 27-exposure count roll.

I'm aware that film also comes in 12 and 15-exposure rolls, but these will turn out to be irrelevant, as you soon will see.

So ...

Officer Hale most likely took 48 or 72 pictures. Less likely scenarios, assuming up to 3 extra pictures per roll, range from 49 to 60, and 71 to 78.

Officer Hale could have easily removed any confusion about the number of pictures he took by simply stating the number of exposures he took for each roll of film he used. Alternatively, and even better, Officer Hale could have (and I suspect did) maintained a photo log describing the nature of each picture taken, and the sequence in which they were taken.

The Lunsford Photos
I've inventoried the photos Barbara sent me. As I mentioned before, she assures me that I have a copy of every 35mm photo she has for the Hughes case. Here's my accounting of how many photos Barbara received from Officer Hale's first two rolls of 35mm film.

Marcell's body at the scene:  9 photos
Beer can at the scene:  1
Trail and brush, excluding Marcell and the beer can:  15
Fuddruckers:  2
Wooden Fence and its opening into the field:  4
Exterior of Preston's apartment:  1
Exterior of apartment in Lakewood Village complex: 1
Interior of Preston's apartment:  14
Shandra's body at the morgue:  3

That's a grand total of 50 photos.

The Possibilities
All of the possibilities (and the one impossibility) I list below assume I properly accounted the number of 35mm photos received by Barbara Lunsford in response to her open records request.

It is impossible that Hale used two rolls of 24-exposure film unless he managed at least two extra pictures between the two rolls. 

It is possible that Hale used two rolls of 24-exposure film and managed exactly two extra pictures between the two rolls. In this case, and in this case only, all photos were provided. 

It is possible that Hale used some other combination of 24, 27, and 36-exposure rolls, and that he managed as many as six extra pictures. The permutations are many and I have worked through them all for you. In these cases, Hale took anywhere from 51 to 78 photos, excluding 70 and 71. In this case, the number of photos withheld range from 1 to 28, excluding 20 and 21. 

The most likely possibility is that Hale used two 36-exposure rolls in normal fashion, taking 72 pictures total. In this most likely scenario, the number of photos withheld is 22.

That's a lot of missing photos. I think a few of them may indeed show Shandra's glasses laying on the ground somewhere in that dark, overgrown, field. I think I know the subject matter of most the other missing photos as well.

Stay tuned.

ADDENDUM (4 August 2012):
Reader Anonymous has quickly and properly faulted me for an unforced error.  His comment in its entirety:

I don't understand how this evidence leads you to conclude that phots are being withheld. You've told us that

(a) There were 50 photos released(b) 24-exposure film was one of the most commonly used types(c) That "most" cameras would be able to get an extra picture or 3 out of each roll. 

Under these circumstances, it seems to me, if Hale did use 24-exposure film, and if the camera that he used was like "most" cameras (and I have no reason to believe it wasn't), then 50 pictures (or even 52) would be about what one would expect. 

Suppose Hale did (as you suggest) use two rolls of 36-exposure film. Suppose further that he took exactly 50 pictures: some 36 from the first roll and the rest from the second. Is it not likely that he would have the second roll of film developed with the first, even though it wasn't entirely used up? I hardly think he would just leave the half-used roll of film lying in the camera until he had another occasion to use it up. 

I'll acknowledge the possibility that the glasses were planted. I'll event acknowledge the possibility that there exists (or existed) photographic evidence of this. But the information you've given here does nothing to support that claim.

Now my groveling response:

Anon, 

I can't (and won't) disagree with your first point, since I made it myself in the post. 

Your second point does highlight a glaring weakness. I didn't make any case that Hale used all the shots on the second roll, and I probably cannot make that case now. 

I know that he reported that he "exposed two rolls" and I consider that suggestive of using all of them. But you properly fault me for simply assuming that, rather than making a more substantive argument.

I'll add an addendum, confess my sin, and move on. 

Thank you for challenging me.

And I spent a really long time on that post. Seriously.

 <-- Previous                           Table of Contents                              Next -->